Re: National Language Support Functions

[Lennart Borgman (gmail)]

Juanma Barranquero wrote:
> I'm not talking about neutrality, nor asking you to be neutral. I'm
> countering your argument that your patches are good for new users
> *because* more people downloads your patched Emacs than the unpatched
> Emacs you also distribute.

Of course I did not say that. What made you think that? All I said is 
that they seem to think it is good. You may of course be right that I 
have convinced them, but that was not my meaning.

> > Since MS Windows is
> > not the main target this makes it problematic to convince people.
>
> I don't think it is hard to convince people, for real problems.
> Perhaps you perceive as problems things that not many people see as
> such.

You may be right.

> > I think it just fell off the wayside.
>
> If you're so convinced it is a problem, you should push harder IMHO.

It may be that not many people except me think it is a problem loosing 
work when logging off. Perhaps they do not think of what they done once 
they logged off? Or maybe they never do.

> > What a you trying to say? That the ability to use those keys as meta
> > should be ruled out because it brakes the Windows UI guidelines?
>
> No. I'm saying that IMO your opinion in that regard is wrong: the
> issue is not uncontroversial.

Maybe you are right, but as far as I remember there was no one saying 
that it is very important to be able to use the Windows keys for example 
to start Explorer from inside Emacs. But I might be mistaken of course.

> > But steeling Alt is a far worse
> > thing than steeling the Windows keys.
>
> I just happen to disagree. Stealing neither one seems bad to me.

What about accessibility guidelines?

> > It as complex as it needs to be
> > and as simple as it can be.
>
> That's only true if you factor the gain out of the equation. 

Or if you include the gain IMO.